“The ultimate point of this article was that we’re better off not wasting time worshiping someone who is described by most texts as a major tyrant, and better off using that energy towards mankind’s endeavors.”
But still in that, you accept God as what they have told you about God. You accept their interpretations, which are translations into English at least from Greek and sometimes from Hebrew as well, that God is a tyrant. That interpretation is the only logical conclusion from the data, but the data is what you’ve been given by people who want to control what you believe about God.
“Note: This entire article assumes that the texts of Abrahamic religions have at least some basis in fact.”
I really wish you had left this in, because obviously in that context God is a tyrant. The god who asked that Abraham kill his son to prove his faith; the god who asked Jesus to be crucified for the sins of mankind. Talking about the Bible as if it was fact is like talking about Harry Potter as if it was fact. It’s truth, not fact. We recognize something in fictions that is like ourselves, and in that sense it is truth, because it reflects our existence, which is something fundamentally in the world. I don’t even know if there ever was a man named Jesus who did what is said that he did, but I know that in speaking of him I realize something fundamental to my own reality, whether he existed or not.
So what you know is that God is not a tyrant. And that is only to say that no definition of God can include tyranny. Very well; I have no desire to contest that. I don’t think that what you and I are saying is all that different. “Yeah, most religious texts are full of holes. But that doesn’t mean the entire thing is completely false and has no basis in actual events.” I’m in full agreement, and all I’m saying is that the “entire thing,” in terms of its manifestation as a written work, has a basis not only in historical events but in individual experiences that are entirely real and valid.